A Different Kind of Fighter

When the moment came to take a stand on the military's policy on gays, Admiral Mike Mullen led like no one before him. He talks to GQ about his decision to speak out

If, in some near or distant future, there is a Pride parade at Fort Bragg, people will probably want to commemorate the moment when the military began accepting openly gay service members. It won't be President Obama's campaign promise to end "Don't ask, don't tell" they're commemorating, or the day when the law is finally repealed. It will be the moment, in February 2010, that Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before Congress. What was striking about his testimony isn't that he said he thought it was time, or that the public was ready for it. The reason he gave was simple: He thought the policy was wrong. As Mullen put it, "No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me personally, it comes down to integrity—theirs as individuals and ours as an institution." Here was the highest-ranking officer in the country, with his chest full of ribbons, saying that the policy undermined the values of the military. "It's incredibly moving because it speaks to the American tradition of a military that's part of American society, that's governed by the same standards and same conduct as American society as a whole," says Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright and gay activist Tony Kushner.

Alexander Nicholson, the director of Servicemembers United, an advocacy group for gay soldiers, says that it took a few moments for the significance of his words to sink in. "It wasn't just the turning point," he says. "It was someone slamming their foot on the accelerator. The issue went from zero to sixty in a matter of two minutes." With Mullen's testimony, the law's repeal moved from talking point to inevitability—and indeed in October a district court judge banned the policy, effective immediately. (For politically confusing reasons, the Obama administration was appealing the decision when we went to press.) GQ visited Mullen at the Pentagon to talk about his legacy, the repeal, and advising the president on the toughest national-security dilemmas of the day.

A lot of folks are amazed that you're on Twitter. Do you actually do the tweeting yourself?

On occasion.

Has it been useful?

Useful in a sense that I'm a big believer in trying to figure out a way to connect with those I lead—and they're a whole lot younger than I am! I know that the whole world of social networking and connectivity is really important. I mean I've seen it; I've got 30-year-old sons. And I remember being 21 and what was on my mind—and it was a whole lot different than what was on my parents' minds. So I'm trying to be in touch with that. And that's really critical, because as I lead them, I need to understand them.

You've been the chairman of the Joint Chiefs since 2007. What do you want your legacy to be?

I don't do legacy. There are those who have urged me to focus more on it. What has been hugely important for me is—remember, I came in as chairman just as the surge in Iraq was happening—is leading and managing in Iraq. And there was no question at some point in this tour that Afghanistan would come into focus, and it's more than just "come into focus." So being involved in the strategy and making sure we have the right people in the right places in Afghanistan and Pakistan is extremely important. I've spent my time focused on the people part of this business. We're doing things none of us could've imagined a few years ago in terms of deployments, rotations, and the impact on military members and their families. I've tried to keep that front and center, to make sure our people will be okay in the future.

Speaking of the people who serve under you: The rates of unemployment and homelessness among veterans are increasing. What can you do about it?

Well, I can put a light on it—and I'm really endeavoring to do that, particularly on health, education, and employment. My perspective is Vietnam. I fought in that war. It was ended ten years before homelessness really took a grip. There's an enormous amount of talent coming home, going into communities around the country, [but I know] there will be challenges associated with wounds visible and invisible as people transition back into communities. So the questions are: How do I go to school? Get an education? How do I assimilate back into the community to make a difference? How do I raise a family? Their lives have changed, but their dreams haven't changed at all.

But you don't have as much control over what happens to veterans as people who are still in active service.

These are still my people. I've asked them to sacrifice, and they have. I feel responsibility for that. They are also a pretty strong recruiting message to those who would look to join the military in the future. So if the totality of that story is a positive one, they set up a recruiting network.

I hate to stick to sad subjects, but I want to raise the issue of suicide among active enlistees. There were four suicides at Fort Hood, I think, a couple of weeks ago.

Two weeks ago. Five over the weekend.

It's epidemic. And really chilling.

That's fair.

Obviously PTSD isn't new. But is this new? Suicide is an unbelievably complex, difficult issue. In the country there are 32,000-plus suicides a year—but there's not extensive research on this [phenomenon in the army]. We're about a year into a five-year study on the issue that the army put in place. It's the first comprehensive work of its kind, and it will spin off results as it goes—because, as I told the research team, I can't wait five years. I'm losing too many people.

In your "Don't ask, don't tell" testimony earlier this year, you argued that the policy is a threat to morale, because it undermines the honor and integrity of soldiers. What led you to that line of thinking?

I have a very difficult time leading an organization—one of whose pillars is integrity—and asking people to lie every single day they come to work.

It is widely accepted that the army's decision to integrate pushed the culture at large closer to acceptance of civil rights. Do you think a repeal of DADT could have a similar effect?

On the issue of integration, the military led society. With respect to this issue, we're clearly not leading. There are many institutions throughout the country that have made this decision some time ago. So in terms of the direct comparison? I'd say that back then the military was in the lead, and right now I think society is in the lead.

What do you think is the biggest practical obstacle to repeal?

Actually, I don't know that at this point. There are a bunch of areas that have to be resolved: housing benefits, those kinds of things. What I'm most concerned about is whether or not a change like this would impact readiness or unit cohesion, retention, or recruiting. Those are the areas that we're focused on. I just don't know the answers yet. But if the law changes, there's no question we'll follow it. Absolutely.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement (effective 1/4/2014) and Privacy Policy (effective 1/4/2014). GQ may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Condé Nast.